Tuesday, May 05, 2026

Shameful nominees


A Trump judicial nominee refused to affirm whether the Constitution prohibits an individual from running for a third term, sparking outrage and confusion.

John George Edward Marck, a Trump nominee to become the next U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing. During the meeting with bipartisan senators, his independence from Trump if he were to be confirmed repeatedly came into question.
Concerns over a possible allegiance to Trump only became worse when Sen. Chris Coon (D-DE.) asked him about the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, which limits the terms that an individual can have in the White House.
“Tell me about the 22nd Amendment. What does it provide?” Coons asked.

“The 22nd Amendment, Senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution; I haven’t had an opportunity to use that one specifically,” Marck said, shrugging his shoulders.
After telling him that the Amendment does not allow a person to be elected for the presidential office more than twice, Coons asked Marck whether Trump would be eligible to run for office again.

“Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical,” the judicial nominee said, deflecting the question. After being pressed, he added that he needed to “review the actual wording of” the Constitution.
Coons then asked other judicial nominees present whether they were “brave enough” to rule out that Trump could run and serve a third term as president. Every single nominee remained silent.

Shameful.

Coons should have produced an overhead projection of the 22nd Amendment:


Twenty-Second Amendment
Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

He should have asked the three nominees to read the projected Amendment and then asked them if they thought they were familiar enough with it now to render an opinion.


They're shameful and they'll just do Chump's bidding.  


"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, May 5, 2025.  The American people overwhelmingly say the country is headed in the wrong direction and that Chump is too weak for the job, Todd Blanche continues to speak nonsense, the Iran War continues to drag on, and much more. 



This morning on MEIDASTOUCH NEWS,  Ben gives a rundown on the ongoing war on Iran. 







A top Iranian official warned on Tuesday of an escalation in the Strait of Hormuz and accused the United States of violating the fragile cease-fire, a day after the U.S. Navy began an initiative to escort commercial ships through the strait, a vital oil shipping waterway.

As the truce appeared to falter, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s top negotiator in the stumbling peace negotiations, said in a social media post that “a new equation” was emerging in the waterway. He said that American actions had endangered shipping through the strait, which Iran has effectively blockaded since the war began in late February.

“We know well that the continuation of the current situation is unbearable for the United States, while we have not even started yet,” Mr. Ghalibaf said.

The U.S. Navy began escorting commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz on Monday. The U.S. Central Command said that two commercial ships operating under the American flag had passed through the waterway. Maersk, the Danish shipping giant, said that one of its vessels, a carrier transporting vehicles that was flying the U.S. maritime flag, had passed through the strait.

But reports of attacks from Iran in and around the Persian Gulf quickly tested the American actions and the Pakistani-brokered cease-fire that paused the war last month.


Chump makes one inane remark after another.  Erica L. Green and Zolan Kanno-Youngs (NEW YORK TIMES) note his lies regarding the domestic impact of his war of choice:

Facing pressure to address the economic fallout of his war in Iran, President Trump on Monday sought to portray his policy wins for small businesses as evidence that he was succeeding in building up the economy.

Speaking to business leaders from across the country at an event in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Trump declared that slashing taxes and regulations had yielded “record business,” and that the economy was “roaring.” The White House described the Small Business Week event as highlighting “the extraordinary revival of Main Street under his America First agenda.”

But looming over it all was a war abroad that Mr. Trump had begun, and whose economic impact is compounding cost-of-living concerns among Americans, many of whom increasingly say their economic reality has worsened under his tenure.

Mr. Trump’s comments on Monday created a sharp contrast with the economic reality outside Washington, as rising energy prices hammer families and businesses alike.


This comes as Americans look at him and judge him to be unfit to serve as president.  Ashleigh Fields (THE HILL) reports:


A new poll found that most Americans say they believe President Trump is mentally and physically unfit to serve as commander in chief. 

The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 59 percent of U.S. respondents said that Trump does not have the mental sharpness it takes to lead the country. Forty percent of respondents said the president is mentally equipped for leadership, and 1 percent of participants skipped the question. 
Comparatively, 55 percent of U.S. adults said Trump is not in good enough physical health to serve as president, while 44 percent disagreed and 1 percent of survey participants skipped the question. 

59%.  That is what you could call a landslide.  59% of Americans believe "Trump does not have the mental sharpness it takes to lead the country."  

And he doesn't.

But 59% of the American people are no longer willing to bite their tongues.  They've seen Chump and his lies and they've watched him destroy the economy.  They see him claim that he doesn't need Congressional approval to continue his war on Iran even through he does need it.  

They've grown used to the fact that he lies and then he lies some more.  

That is how he plays it. 



RealClearPolitics’ average of polls shows 61 percent of Americans believe the country is on the “wrong track” as of April 28, marking the first time public sentiment has reached that level during Trump’s second term. Some 61.6 percent of Americans thought the county was heading in the wrong direction on January 18, 2025, two days before Trump was inaugurated for a second term, according to RealClearPolitics’ average.

It comes as polls have shown the president’s approval rating has dropped in recent months, and that his rating on handling of all major issues including the economy remain underwater amid high grocery and gas prices due to the Iran war.



61% believe the country is on the wrong track.

61%.

Again, a clear majority of Americans.






In related news, AP reports:

The Pentagon announced last week that it would pull some 5,000 troops out of Germany, but Trump told reporters on Saturday that “we’re going to cut way down. And we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000.”

He offered no reason for the move, which blindsided NATO, but his decision came amid an escalating dispute with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the U.S-Israeli war on Iran, and Trump’s anger that European allies have been reluctant to get involved in the conflict in the Middle East.


Sam Levine (GUARDIAN) reports:


Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw more US troops from Germany after stunning European leaders and some senior members of his own party by last week announcing the withdrawal of 5,000 soldiers from Germany.

The move left 30,000 US troops still in the country, according to CNN. But Trump threatened on Saturday that more cuts were coming. “We are going to cut way down, and we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000,” he told reporters on Saturday.

[. . .]

The Republicans who chair the armed services committees in Congress, Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, released a joint statement on Saturday saying they were “very concerned” by the possibility of reducing troops in Germany.


Republicans and Democrats in Congress are speaking out on the move.  For example, Ashleigh Fields (THE HILL) adds:


Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) on Sunday criticized the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany following a public spat with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 

Last week, the German chancellor said that Washington was being “humiliated” by Iran amid the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in remarks condemned by President Trump. 

Crow said, “It appears as though this decision was made because Donald Trump was upset by a comment made by the German chancellor, like he is getting emotional and angry about this, and he’s making really consequential troop decision — troop movement decisions based upon being upset by the comments of a foreign leader, which is no way to run a foreign policy,” during an appearance on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

“So, we’re looking into it, and we’re going to make sure that any movements, if they do occur, are actually in our interests,” the House Democrat added. 





 

This is the start of a presidential tantrum, not the end of one: Trump told reporters late Friday that he intends to cut U.S. troop deployments in Germany “a lot further” than 5,000. Hours earlier, a reporter asked whether he was considering pulling U.S. troops out of Spain and Italy, too, since its leaders also recently hurt Trump’s feelings. “Yeah, probably,” he replied. “Why shouldn’t I?”

The Pentagon reportedly didn’t see this coming: Politico reported last week that Trump’s threats, preceding Friday’s announcement, “stunned defense officials.”

The Putin angle: The same Politico report noted that Trump’s initial threat “came hours after he spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long sought to reduce the number of NATO troops in Europe.” The American president has been going to scandalous lengths to please Moscow, and the decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Germany belongs on the same list.

The pushback on Capitol Hill has been relatively bipartisan: While Democratic officials were quick to condemn the administration’s move, they weren’t alone, as some congressional Republicans agreed that the redeployments are a mistake.

This won’t help our geopolitical interests: In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Linas Kojala, the chief executive of the Geopolitics and Security Studies Center in Lithuania, argued persuasively that Trump’s move “risks weakening one of America’s best strategic investments: a military presence that deters Russia and keeps Europe’s old rivalries from becoming America’s problem again.”


As Rachel Maddow noted last night on MS NOW, the US troops he's removing from Germany?



 Rachel Maddow:  Where do you think they sent the US troops who had to be evacuated really quickly off of all those undefended bases all over the Middle East?  Where'd they send them?  They sent them to Germany because we have a really big troop presence in Germany and lots of facilities for our troops in Germany.  There have been hundreds of US troops wounded in Trump's Iran War so far. Where do US troops get evacuated to when they're wounded in the Middle East?  They get evacuated to Germany because we have such a big troops presence there and lots of military facilities there to handle those things.  Trump is now sending 5,000 American troops home from that crucial position.


As Americans suspect, he has no idea what he's doing.  Take the battleships he wants built.  Alex Henderson reports:



In December 2025, President Donald Trump announced that a World War 2-era battleship would be back in use. But defense technology has changed considerably since that war, which ended 81 years ago in 1945. And according to analysis from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, the "Trump-class battleship" doesn't meet the needs of 21st Century defense and warfare and is absolute technologically.
Fortune's Jake Angelo, in an article published on May 3, explains, "Here's the issue: the U.S. Navy hasn't operated a battleship since the last Iowa-class vessel was retired in 1992 — a type of vessel which hasn't even been constructed since the mid-20th Century. The Trump-class battleship, which the Department of Defense is requesting upwards of $1 billion to build, will inherently be stuck in WW2, and would be rendered helpless against modern-day weapons. In fact, despite the billion-dollar price tag, Cato puts the true cost at $20 billion apiece, and it still won't be able to subvert modern-day, advanced anti-ship missiles."





Turning to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, 



Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made an appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, where he was forced to admit that the term "8647" wasn't worth indicting someone over.

Since the arrest of former FBI Director James Comey, clothing bearing the message "86-47" has appeared all over Etsy and Amazon. During the show, host Kristen Welker pulled up the search on Amazon for such clothing and asked Blanche whether everyday Americans should expect a visit from the FBI and Secret Service for wearing such a shirt or for posting the numbers anywhere online.
Blanche was clear, no one is being targeted over "86-47" unless there is a reason to believe they are specifically threatening the president.

“This is not just about a single Instagram post,” Blanche said. “This is about a body of evidence that [prosecutors] collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury.”

CNN legal analyst and former prosecutor Elie Honig explained that the filing from the Justice Department makes it clear that it's only about the Instagram photo that Comey posted.

"If you look at the indictment, if you look at the statute that DOJ has chosen to charge here, if you look at the wording of the indictment, it's quite clear that Jim Comey's Instagram post with the seashells, that is the case. And the case is that post. So I'm skeptical," said Honig.

The legal expert doesn't think that the DOJ will find much that would materially change the meaning of the phrase "86-47" to be more threatening than what Comey posted and said.
Former prosecutor and ex-law school professor Glenn Kirschner explained that the comments dealt a blow to the Justice Department's case.

Blanche's press conference made it clear that the photo was part of a larger case involving "threatening the life of the president."

After showing the clip of Blanche promising that every post of "8647" "does not result in indictments," Kirschner asked, "Really? Todd?"

"He just admitted that there are countless, maybe thousands, tens of thousands of people posting, saying, wearing t-shirts that display that very same thing, and what did he say? 'No! They're not prosecuted for that!'" recalled Kirschner. "Why? Well, they're not Donald Trump's perceived enemies, are they?"




During his latest appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Donald Trump’s former defense lawyer, who’s launched an unsubtle campaign to persuade the president to nominate him as former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s successor, argued that people should stop talking about Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices gutting the Voting Rights Act and start instead talking about voter ID.

“Every time you walk into a restaurant or a club, you have to show your ID,” the acting attorney general told host Kristen Welker. “How about you have to show your ID to vote? That’s not anything that’s crazy, and that’s what we should be talking about.”

So, a few things.

First, treating the gutting of the Voting Rights Act as an inconvenience to be overlooked is ridiculous.

Second, I’ve been to plenty of restaurants, and I’ve never even heard of one that requires patrons to show identification at the door.

Third, the right to dine out is in no way comparable to the right to vote, as the acting attorney general really ought to understand.

But as important as these elements are, they’re not unfolding in a vacuum. Blanche is in the midst of an unannounced audition, which he’s trying nail through a series of unsubtle moves that include indicting people the president doesn’t like, advocating firing squads as a method of federal execution, releasing absurd reports critical of the Biden administration while gratuitously slamming Joe Biden himself, and intervening in support of Trump’s ballroom crusade.

So while the Republican lawyer’s “ID at restaurants” line was laughable, it wasn’t intended to persuade the public; it was intended to impress the president watching to see whether Blanche would embarrass himself in support of Trump’s agenda.


Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

The Fair Trusts for Fiscal Responsibility Act cracks down on tax avoidance and ensures that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share

A conservative estimate projects Murray’s bill would generate $675 billion over ten years

Senator Murray: “The revenue from this bill alone could extend the ACA tax credits AND provide high quality child care for every working family in America.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, introduced the Fair Trusts for Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2026 to close tax loopholes used by the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying taxes through complicated trust arrangements. The legislation is co-led by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee.

“Firefighters and nurses don’t get to hide their money in a trust fund and skip out on paying their taxes—billionaires shouldn’t get to either,” said Senator Murray. “The very wealthiest Americans hide their fortunes in a trust for generations and call it tax planning—that is absurd and those are dollars that should be going to our schools, infrastructure, and health care. In America, if you earn a paycheck, you are paying taxes—it’s time to close the loophole that lets individuals with armies of lawyers stash away billions without paying taxes. This Republican Congress has bent over backwards to rig the system for billionaires. I am simply proposing that the ultra-wealthy—people with more than $50 million sitting in a trust—finally pay what they owe and contribute their fair share back to the country that made their success possible. I’ll bet that most Americans would prefer we fund child care and pre-k for every working family in this country rather than let billionaires get a free ride on their taxes. The revenue from this bill alone could extend the ACA tax credits AND provide high quality child care for every working family in America. If you don’t have more than $50 million laying around in a trust, you don’t have to worry about this bill resulting in anything other than better funded roads and public schools.”

“We cannot allow there to be ultra-wealthy dynasties in this country hoarding all the money and power for generations on end, and we cannot have a tax system that encourages it,” said Senator Wyden. “Our budgets suffer and economic opportunity bleeds away when the ultra-wealthy dodge taxes in America, so this bill is a smart way of ensuring the highest earners are paying a fair share just like nearly everybody else.”

Most Americans will not receive an inheritance, and for those that do, only those with assets exceeding $30 million—for a married couple—are required to contribute a portion through taxes, and even then, only on amounts over that substantial exemption. Fewer than 0.1% of Americans pay estate tax at all. These funds provide revenue that can be used for essential investments in our country, like schools or critical infrastructure. Yet many of the very wealthiest Americans use special trusts to delay, minimize, and avoid paying taxes. Experts estimate that hundreds of billions of dollars and potentially trillions of dollars are held in generation-skipping transfer tax exempt trusts that are not subject to the rule against perpetuities.

The Fair Trusts for Fiscal Responsibility Act addresses tax avoidance head on by applying a 1 percent rate on trust assets between $50 million and $100 million, 1.5 percent between $100 million and $250 million, 2 percent between $250 million and $1 billion, and 3 percent on assets above $1 billion. To ensure fairness, the bill provides full refundability of the withholding against estate tax liability so that only those actively avoiding transfer taxes face increased burdens, while also capping total withholding so it does not exceed estate tax owed. The legislation further strengthens compliance through new reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance, while exempting charitable trusts, ERISA-qualified employee benefit trusts, and other trusts not typically used in estate planning.

A conservative estimate of a similar proposal indicates that Murray’s legislation would raise approximately $675 billion over ten years, noting, “even based on our low-end estimate of $4.5 trillion in GST-exempt trusts today, if those trusts face an average annual tax of 1.5% under the withholding tax, that is approximately $675 billion over ten years.” This could fund free school lunch for every kid in America, child care for every working family, and the replacement of every lead pipe in America; alternatively, the revenue could fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for decades, or extend the enhanced premium ACA tax credits nearly twice over.

In addition to Senators Murray and Wyden, the bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Van Hollen, Booker, and Alsobrooks.

The legislation is endorsed by Americans for Tax Fairness, Patriotic Millionaires, Public Citizen, Groundwork, Economic Security Project Action, NETWORK Lobby, National Women’s Law Center, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and United for a Fair Economy.

“A tax system that favors the rich makes America a poorer country for everyone, including the rich themselves. Working Americans can’t wait until later to pay taxes,” said Bob Lord,Senior Vice President for Tax Policy, Patriotic Millionaires. “Taxes are withheld from every one of their paychecks. So when ultra-rich Americans use trusts to delay paying estate tax for 50 years on billion-dollar fortunes left for their grandchildren, average Americans feel cheated. Sen. Murray’s Fair Trusts for Fiscal Responsibility Act would end this outrageous preferential treatment and restore a feeling of fairness to our tax system. Ultra-rich families wouldn’t make more tax payments. They’d just make more timely tax payments, like the rest of America does.”

“ATF applauds Senator Murray for introducing the Fair Trusts for Fiscal Responsibility Act,” said David Kass, Executive Director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “For decades, the wealthy have been able to hoard massive amounts of wealth and pass it down to future generations through key loopholes. The existing estate-tax exemption is so high ($30M for married couples) that only the wealthiest 0.1% of estates owe any tax. Yet wealthy families can further reduce what they pay through strategies like GRATs and dynasty trusts, leading to losses in revenue for public investments in education, healthcare, and more. This legislation would make key reforms to curb these abuses and rein in dynastic wealth in our country.”

Senator Murray is fighting for tax fairness and closing loopholes on Wall Street. Last month, at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Social Security, Senator Murray slammed the Trump administration for gutting the Social Security Administration (SSA) and questioned witnesses on the fact that the very wealthiest Americans have the smallest effective payroll tax rate. Murray made clear that when it comes to addressing SSA solvency, there is no reason for working people to face drastic benefit cuts when the very wealthiest could simply pay their fair share.

In 2025, Senator Murray helped introduce the Carried Interest Fairness Act to eliminate a tax loophole that benefits wealthy money managers on Wall Street. The current carried interest loophole allows investment managers to often pay almost half the tax rate compared to most other Washington workers. Over the course of her career, Murray has long championed a fair tax system—rejecting Republican efforts to cut benefits for working people and repeatedly pushing for reforms to ensure the very wealthiest Americans simply pay their fair share. Murray has always recognized that the national debt and deficits pose real challenges; however, it has been her longstanding belief that America can reduce budget deficits while still investing in national priorities that support economic growth.

The full text of the legislation is HERE.

A one pager is HERE.

###







The following sites -- plus Ruth's "Chump would love for everyone to live in a state of fear" --  updated:


  • Monday, May 04, 2026

    Science grab bag (emphasis on wolves and dogs)

    Science grab bag time.  Starting off with a discovery that's kind of been known already for awhile.  Melissa Ait Lounis (DAILY GALAXY) reports:

    More than1,600 years after its disappearance, massive stones from the Lighthouse of Alexandria are being recovered from the Mediterranean seabed. Archaeologists have brought up massive stone blocks tied to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

    In the waters off Alexandria, a submerged site known for decades is now yielding some of its most striking elements. The PHAROS project reports that 22 monumental stone blocks linked to the lighthouse have been lifted from the seabed after years of underwater exploration.

    Built in the 3rd century BCE, the lighthouse guided ships through dangerous coastal waters for centuries before its destruction. Its remains, scattered underwater, are now being carefully documented and analyzed.
    The recovered elements include lintels, doorjambs, thresholds and paving slabs. Each block weighs between 70 and 80 tons, reflecting the scale of the original structure. The team led by Isabelle Hairy at the CNRS explains that these pieces likely formed part of the lighthouse’s monumental entrance, where architectural styles combined Egyptian and Greek influences.

    The presence of these remains has been known since 1968, when the ruins were first observed beneath the water. A major step came in 1994, when archaeologist Jean-Yves Empereurled a campaign that identified and cataloged more than 3,300 objects. Among them were sphinxes, obelisks, columns and granite blocks, all spread across the seabed and linked to the lighthouse and surrounding structures.


    So that's very interesting.  Cassian Holt (MORNING OVERVIEW) reports:

    On a wind-battered rock in the Baltic Sea, archaeologists have uncovered a puzzle that cuts to the heart of how dogs first entered human lives. Wolf bones dating back roughly 5,000 years show that people were not just tolerating large carnivores in their camps, they were transporting them to places wolves could never have reached alone. The find forces researchers to rethink whether domestication was a single, linear story or a patchwork of experiments in living with wolves that sometimes stopped short of producing dogs.
    The remains, recovered on a tiny island far from any natural wolf habitat, carry genetic and chemical signatures of close contact with humans yet still look strikingly wild. That tension, between wild identity and human dependence, is what makes these animals so disruptive to long-held theories about when, where, and why dogs emerged from their wolf ancestors.
    The animals at the center of this debate were found on Stora Karlsö, a small limestone island off Sweden that is better known today for seabird colonies than for large predators. In the Bronze Age and earlier, the island was even more isolated, with sheer cliffs and surrounding waters that would have posed a serious barrier to any swimming carnivore. Modern gray wolves are strong travelers across land and ice, but there is no realistic way a breeding population could have established itself on such a confined outcrop without help from people, which is why the discovery of multiple wolf skeletons there immediately raised eyebrows among researchers who study domestication.
    Archaeological surveys of Stora Karlsö have long documented human activity, including burial sites and evidence of seasonal occupation, but the presence of large carnivores adds a new dimension to that story. The wolf bones were not scattered randomly like driftwood; they appeared in contexts that suggest deliberate placement, sometimes near human remains, hinting that these animals were part of a shared social and ritual landscape rather than occasional visitors that died by chance.
    When researchers examined the skeletons, they found that the animals were unmistakably gray wolves in size and morphology, not the smaller, more gracile forms associated with early dogs. Yet the condition of the bones told a more intimate story. Some showed signs of healed injuries, which implies that the wolves had lived long enough under care or at least in a stable environment where survival after trauma was possible. That pattern fits better with animals living alongside people than with fully wild predators eking out a living on a marginal island.
    Chemical analysis of the remains, including isotopic signatures, indicated diets rich in marine resources such as fish and seals, foods that are difficult for wolves to obtain on their own in large quantities. The most plausible explanation is that humans were provisioning these animals with the same coastal bounty they themselves relied on, a conclusion echoed in reporting that describes how it is difficult for wolves to capture such marine organisms without human assistance. In other words, the bones capture a snapshot of wolves that were physically wild but nutritionally and logistically tied to human communities.


    So that's very interesting -- especially for dog lovers.  Isabela Erickson (TRUFFLE COSTA) notes dogs that are the closest to wolves:

    For centuries, humans have shaped dogs into countless breeds, but a groundbreaking new study reveals that some modern-day canines retain a startling genetic proximity to their wild wolf ancestors. Prepare to discover the domestic breeds that carry the most ancient DNA, linking them directly to the untamed wilderness. This gallery uncovers which dogs truly stand apart.
    Hailing from Central Africa, the Basenji is often called the "barkless dog" due to its unique yodel, an ancient vocalization. Genetically, this primitive breed stands out as one of the closest to wolves, with a genome remarkably untamed. Their independent nature, foxy expression, and distinctive curled tail all hint at a lineage largely untouched by selective breeding until recent times.
    Originating from the mountainous regions of northern Japan, the Akita Inu is a large, powerful breed revered for its loyalty and courage. Genetic studies reveal its deep ancestral roots, placing it remarkably close to ancient wolves. Their strong physique, double coat, and watchful demeanor echo traits from an untamed past.
    Famed for their incredible endurance and striking blue or multi-colored eyes, Siberian Huskies carry a strong genetic signature of their wolf ancestors. Bred by the Chukchi people for sledding in harsh Arctic conditions, their adaptability, pack mentality, and robust physical traits underscore a lineage closely tied to wild canids.


    Centuries-old DNA has confirmed that Greenland’s sledge dog Qimmit is the oldest yet known domesticated dog breed, a discovery that sheds more light on their close relationship with the region’s indigenous Inuit people.

    The findings, published in the journal Science, also reveal fresh insights into the history of Inuit migration and their Arctic adaptation.
    Researchers, including those from the Ilisimatusarfik University in Nuuk, Greenland, assessed genomes from over 90 dogs across Greenland spanning the past 800 years, capturing data from both ancient and modern canines.

    They then compared the genome data with those of over 1,900 published dog genomes.

    Scientists discovered that the Qimmit breed forms a distinct clade with other ancient Arctic dogs, most notably a 3,700-year-old Alaskan dog.

    Sledge dogs have been a central part of Arctic life for over 9,500 years.


    And let's wrap up with Elizabeth Rayne (POPULAR MECHANICS): 

    As humans, it’s important to remember that some of our oldest primate ancestors were apelike creatures. Besides our much larger brains and visibly obvious differences, such as facial features, one thing we evolved to be much more adept at than chimps and gorillas (which we diverged from millions of years ago) is walking on two feet. But just when did human predecessors first descend from the trees and walk upright?

    A 4.4-million-year-old female skeleton named Ardi may answer that question. Predating even the iconic Lucy by a million years, she belongs to the species Ardipithecus ramidus, and is revealing more about our origins and how we became bipedal.

    Unearthed in the Ethiopian desert back in 1994, Ardi is the oldest known partial hominin skeleton, though her species has been known since 1925 under the name Australopithecus ramidus. Biological anthropologist Thomas Prang of Washington University in St. Louis and his research team discovered that Ardi was able to walk upright but still retained a grasping foot and other apelike features.

    “Our observations of the human and ape fossil record are inconsistent with recently proposed models of human origins, which envision the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees as a generalized arboreal ape,” he said in a study recently published in Communications Biology. “Instead, our results strongly imply that humans evolved from an African ape-like ancestor.”


    "The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

    Monday, May 4, 2026.  Chump pimps a new plan that was supposed to start this morning ("will begin Monday morning, Middle East time") but it didn't start and it's now about 3:30 pm in Iran, Iraq and the region, Chump has a hissy fit over remarks made and pulls US troops from Germany, his war with Pope Leo was not a win for Chump, Senator Patty Murray speaks out in support of  mifepristone, and much more.



    Iran pushed back against President Trump’s latest attempt to break the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, threatening to attack American warships and any commercial vessels that sought to transit through the waterway without Iranian permission.

    Ali Abdollahi, a top Iranian military commander, warned “all commercial ships and oil tankers to refrain from any attempt to transit without coordination with the armed forces,” Iranian state media reported.

    “⁠We warn that any foreign armed force — especially the aggressive U.S. military — if they intend to approach or enter the Strait of Hormuz, will be targeted and attacked,” he added.

    Mr. Trump said on Sunday that the United States would assist ships trapped in the waterway because of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran to get out but did not provide details of what that would entail.



    As Ben notes on MEDIASTOUCH NEWS this morning, it's not what Donald says it is.



    At the top of the video below, you will see Katty Kay on MORNING JOE talking about what Chump posted last night regarding this.  On the screen, they displays Chump's social media posts including one from Chump declaring "This process, Project Freedom, will begin Monday morning, Middle East time." The problem with that?  It's close to 3:30 pm in that region right now.  




    "It does not currently involve US Navy warships escorting vessels through the strait, the officials said,"  Katty read from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.  Leigh Kimmins (DAILY BEAST) notes:


    U.S. officials contradicted the president in statements given to the WSJ. They said the plan “doesn’t currently involve U.S. Navy warships escorting vessels through the strait.” It is “not an escort mission,” one official told CNN.

    U.S. ships will merely be located “in the vicinity” to oversee tankers moving through the strait, Axios was told. 



    How's that going to work out?  Who knows but Adam Schreck and Sam Metz (AP) report this morning:


    The U.S. military is rejecting claims that Iran struck a U.S. Navy vessel.

    The denial on Monday came as the U.S. remains active in the area near the Persian Gulf, offering to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz and dislodge Iran’s blockade on vessels that don’t receive its authorization..

    Iranian news agencies — including the semiofficial agency Fars and the Iranian Labour News Agency — claimed that Iran had struck a U.S. Navy vessel southeast of the strait of Hormuz, accusing it of “violating maritime security and navigation norms.”


    In related news, AP reports:

    The Pentagon announced last week that it would pull some 5,000 troops out of Germany, but Trump told reporters on Saturday that “we’re going to cut way down. And we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000.”

    He offered no reason for the move, which blindsided NATO, but his decision came amid an escalating dispute with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the U.S-Israeli war on Iran, and Trump’s anger that European allies have been reluctant to get involved in the conflict in the Middle East.


    Sam Levine (GUARDIAN) reports:


    Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw more US troops from Germany after stunning European leaders and some senior members of his own party by last week announcing the withdrawal of 5,000 soldiers from Germany.

    The move left 30,000 US troops still in the country, according to CNN. But Trump threatened on Saturday that more cuts were coming. “We are going to cut way down, and we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000,” he told reporters on Saturday.

    [. . .]

    The Republicans who chair the armed services committees in Congress, Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, released a joint statement on Saturday saying they were “very concerned” by the possibility of reducing troops in Germany.


    Republicans and Democrats in Congress are speaking out on the move.  For example, Ashleigh Fields (THE HILL) adds:


    Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) on Sunday criticized the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany following a public spat with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 

    Last week, the German chancellor said that Washington was being “humiliated” by Iran amid the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in remarks condemned by President Trump. 

    Crow said, “It appears as though this decision was made because Donald Trump was upset by a comment made by the German chancellor, like he is getting emotional and angry about this, and he’s making really consequential troop decision — troop movement decisions based upon being upset by the comments of a foreign leader, which is no way to run a foreign policy,” during an appearance on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

    “So, we’re looking into it, and we’re going to make sure that any movements, if they do occur, are actually in our interests,” the House Democrat added. 


    In other Chump disasters, let's move over to Chump's war with Pope Leo.   Michael McGough (WASHINGTON MONTHLY) observes:


    For anyone old enough to remember the 1980s and Ronald Reagan and Republicans’ success at wooing Catholic voters away from the Democratic Party, which the GOP once lambasted as the home of “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion,” the contretemps between Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV is particularly stunning. It’s also stunning for Democrats of a certain age who remember being crestfallen that the GOP had wooed so many Catholic voters from the party of Al Smith, John F. Kennedy, and Tip O’Neill. The Reagan Democrats—many of whom were Catholic—were a prize to be treasured, not cast away with a Truth Social post. For his part, Vice President JD Vance, a recent but hardly humble Catholic convert, rendered unto Caesar, saying Leo should “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.” Um, noted.

    Michael Novak, the late conservative Catholic scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who devoted much of his career to chronicling and persuading Catholics to move right, is spinning in his grave under Rock Creek Cemetery.

    Trump’s irascibility, hot temper, and twitchy thumbs couldn’t keep him from condemning the pontiff for being “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” after the pope made comments calling for peace in the Mideast—where the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran—and other remarks about political leaders manipulating religion for personal gain. The pope later clarified that the speech containing the last criticism wasn’t directed at Trump.

    Not satisfied to frame Pope Leo, a working-class White Sox fan from Chicago, as a liberal elitist, Trump went on to say: “I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History. Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise.”

    Naturally, politicians and pundits hotly debated whether Trump’s dissing of a spiritual leader would alienate Catholics whom Republicans have long courted. The short answer is that no one can be sure, but it could make a difference in close, swing races if there are many, given the potential for a Democratic blowout.

    Trump has been quiet lately about the pope, but the pope keeps talking about war and peace, as he did the other day when he met the archbishop of Canterbury.


    Catherina Gioino (FORTUNE) observes Chump's gross stupidity:


    Trump’s version of the American Dream says the winners are being stolen from: by immigrants and globalists, and by institutions that no longer serve the people who built them. His opponents mostly argue within the same framework, insisting the system should be fairer but still organized around the same ideals. Pope Leo XIV is the first American pope, and is also the only person in the world with the moral authority, the biography, and the institutional platform to critique the MAGA vision of America on its own terms, using its own words.

    Trump chose to pick a fight with the Pope in a way that his own base argue is against the very things he preaches. His approval rating has fallen to 34% in Pew’s latest survey, the lowest of his second term. The Iran war he launched has closed the Strait of Hormuz, disrupted 20% of global oil supplies, pushed gas prices past $4 a gallon, and driven inflation back to 3.3%, the highest since May 2024, with economists warning it could reach 4.2% by year’s end.

    The IMF has flagged global recession risk. A majority of voters, 53%, now call the Iran military action a failure, and Democrats hold a 10-point lead on the generic congressional ballot heading into the midterms. An AP poll puts Trump’s approval on the economy at 30%. And into this steps an American pope with a 42% favorable rating and an 8% unfavorable rating, a net favorability 34 points better than the president’s, making the moral case against the very war that is producing the economic pain. The reason why he remains so untouchable despite Trump’s attacks is that he embodies the same thing Trump is: an American.


    Chump picked a fight with the Pope.  The Pope.  Who doesn't work for Chump.  Who is a powerful figure in the Catholic Church.  His power is independent of Chump's and may very well be more than Chump's.  But Chump elected to pick a fight with Pope Leo.


    Who isn't dependent upon Chump for anything.


    Marc Ramirez, Phaedra Trethan, Mike Stunson, Bailey Allen, Liam Adams and Rachel Gow (USA TODAY) note:

     It's been nearly 1,000 years since King Henry IV stood barefoot in the Italian snow to beg forgiveness after clashes with Pope Gregory VII and over two centuries since Napoleon imprisoned Pope Pius VII in France. Now, a new battle is underway between a pope and a world leader, this time in America.

    It's the war of words between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV. And for dozens of U.S. Catholics interviewed by the USA TODAY Network across the nation, it's Leo who has the upper hand in the crusade. A year into his historic papacy he has given them hope for the future of the Catholic Church.

    At Villanova, where Leo graduated in 1977, Catholic convert Jacob Adams, 25, said outside the campus' St. Thomas Church that young people don’t have much appetite for war. Hence, they appreciate Leo's strong words in defiance of Trump's recent comments about destroying “a whole civilization” in the Iran war.

    “Right or left, there are people calling for peace,” said Adams, a former evangelical who supported Trump in 2020 and 2024. “I like what (Leo) is doing to hold (Trump) accountable.”

    With the pontiff about to finish year one in his papacy, the USA TODAY Network spoke with Catholics nationwide about their views of Leo and found their responses overwhelmingly upbeat. Many say Leo is palpably different from Pope Francis, with an everyman affability they believe is helping fuel a global resurgence in Catholicism - especially among the young.


    And while Pope Leo was being embraced over the last months, Chump was seeing his own support dwindle to record lows.  And that was before Chump posted the photo of himself as God.  That's blasphemy.  In the US, we don't call for off-with-their-heads over blasphemy but we also don't embrace blasphemy.  

    And it is in the weakened period that Chump's learning who has the actual power.  Malcolm Ferguson (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes:

    Pope Leo XIV has named three new bishops in the United States, each of whom have been vocal critics of President Trump.

    Evelio Menjivar, a formerly undocumented immigrant, will be the new bishop for the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston in West Virginia, and Gary Studniewski and Robert Boxie III will be auxiliary bishops in Washington, D.C. The appointments indicate a deliberate choice on the pope’s part to select representatives in the United States who will be similarly unafraid to raise their voices against the Trump administration.

    Menjivar, who immigrated from El Salvador to the U.S. in the trunk of a car when he was a teenager, decried Trump’s immigration crackdown last year in the National Catholic Reporter. “The federal government has pursued a ‘shock and awe’ campaign of aggressive threats and highly visible operations of questionable legality that go far beyond mere immigration ‘enforcement,’” he wrote. “We must stand with those at risk … and we cannot let the dark side of anti-immigrant animus take hold.”


    Y. John Raby and Giovanna Dellorto (INDEPENDENT) add:


    The new bishop, who has spent his ministerial career in the nation's capital and surrounding communities, will work in a less Catholic and more rural region, overseeing the diocese’s 61,000 Catholics and 92 parishes throughout West Virginia.

    While acknowledging the beauty of West Virginia mountains and natural resources, he said many people in one of the nation’s poorest states “continue to endure hardship, marginalization and inequality.”

    Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington praised Menjivar-Ayala’s advocacy for migrants during his tenure in the capital, saying in a statement that “his passion for justice and sensitive care for the Hispanic and immigrant communities of our Archdiocese have planted seeds of grace that will yield a harvest here for decades to come.”

    In an article he wrote last year for the Catholic Standard, the official newspaper of the Washington archdiocese, Menjivar-Ayala spoke out against the treatment of immigrants by Trump’s administration.



    Moving over to Todd Blanche. Devlin Barrett (NEW YORK TIMES) reports on acting attorney general Todd Blanche:


    Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, on Sunday sought to contrast the Justice Department’s indictment of the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey over a social media post with other instances in which people have shared the same message, saying that the department had gathered additional evidence during an 11-month investigation.

    Mr. Comey was indicted last week over a photo that he posted on Instagram in May 2025 of seashells on a beach that spelled out “86 47,” which the department characterized as a threat to the president. The charge was the second attempt by the Justice Department under President Trump to prosecute Mr. Comey and the department’s latest effort to pursue charges against the president’s perceived enemies.

    Asked on NBC’s “Meet The Press” whether others who displayed the same numbers, or bought or sold T-shirts with the same message, would face the same prosecution, Mr. Blanche said no.

    The “86 47” message, Mr. Blanche said, is “posted constantly — that phrase is used constantly.” He added, “Every one of those statements do not result in indictments.” What makes Mr. Comey’s case different, he argued, is other evidence collected, which he said he could not describe.


    Blanche wasn't the only one on MEET THE PRESS this morning.  Senator Adam Schiff also appeared.  Max Rego (THE HILL) reports:

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) sought another grand jury indictment of James Comey because acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wants to stay in the post full-time. 

    Schiff told host Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the DOJ sought the indictment, which a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned on Tuesday, because Comey is a “political opponent” of President Trump. 

    He also listed other reasons, saying, “It’s the fact the president has called upon [Comey] to prosecution. It’s the fact that Todd Blanche wants to keep this job.”

    “It’s the fact that [former Attorney General] Pam Bondi didn’t successfully bring a case against one of the president’s enemies,” added the California Democrat, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 


    Also taking to the morning airwaves Sunday?  Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy.   Jennifer Bowers Bahney (MEDIAITE) notes:

    ABC News’s Martha Raddatz confronted Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy about a dismal new poll showing Americans feeling “bleak” about gas prices.
    [. . .]

    Raddatz then hit Duffy with the new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.

    “Mr. Secretary, I know you’re feeling optimistic about this, but Americans are apparently not. Our new poll makes clear they feel generally bleak about their financial situation,” Raddatz said.

    She continued, “Forty-four percent cut back on driving, 42 percent cut household expenses, 34 percent changed vacation plans. The rise in gas prices is having a real effect. So what would you say to those Americans? We see no end in sight yet of that war.”

    Duffy began to talk about “what the president has done for consumers,” mentioning the one big, beautiful bill; tax refunds; no tax on tips or Social Security.

    “But Mr. Secretary, what I’m talking about is now. I’m talking about now,” Raddatz interjected.

    “I’m talking about now,” she repeated. “What is your message to Americans now who are suffering because of these gas prices?”



    Let's note this from Rachel Maddow (from last Monday but MS NOW just posted it two hours ago).




    Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray:


    Washington, D.C. — Today U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, issued the following statement in response to the Fifth Circuit ruling that, as of now, has resulted in requiring patients nationwide to fill mifepristone prescriptions in-person at a health center:

    “Mifepristone is safe and effective—millions of women have used this medication since the FDA approved it over 25 years ago. The only reason mifepristone is regulated as heavily as it already is, is because of anti-abortion politics, not because of science. Yet Republican anti-abortion extremists will stop at nothing to rip this basic health care away from women in America. Let’s be clear about what just happened: three judges on the most extreme appeals court in the country sided with anti-abortion politicians over the FDA’s career scientists, over a quarter-century of safety data, over millions of American women who have safely used mifepristone, and over practically every major medical association in the United States.

    “The real-world consequences of this decision are devastating and immediate—and it is beyond infuriating and infantilizing what these judges are forcing women to do. A patient in rural Washington who was going to receive her medication by mail, now has to find a clinic, take time off work, arrange childcare, and travel—sometimes hours—for a pill she could have safely taken at home. A woman managing a miscarriage will be forced to make that same trip in the middle of one of the worst weeks of her life.

    “This should not be
    a country where women’s access to health care is determined by the whims of a few zealous anti-abortion judges with zero medical or scientific training—do Americans really want a country where a panel of judges get to decide what medicine we can or can’t take? What’s next: cancer drugs? HIV medication? Let’s be eyes wide open that Republicans will accept nothing short of a national abortion ban—I will be fighting to ensure access to medication abortion every single way possible and to restore the right to abortion in every state for every woman.”

    Two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose banning medication abortion. The overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want abortion legislated at all.

    Senator Murray leads the Democratic caucus on reproductive health care issues, and she has led the fight in Congress to protect and expand access to mifepristone. Senator Murray led the Congressional response to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a lawsuit brought by Republican anti-abortion extremists trying to rip away access to mifepristone—Murray led multiple amicus briefs, organized her colleagues, and raised the alarm at every turn. In June 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the case on standing, but Murray made clear that “the nationwide threat to medication abortion has not gone away—far from it. If Donald Trump and his anti-abortion allies return to power, they will do everything they can to rip away access to mifepristone and ban abortion nationwide.” 

    Senator Murray has grilled Trump’s FDA Commissioner, Marty Makary, on access to mifepristone at every opportunity she’s had—including at a HELP Committee hearing on his nomination in March, and an Appropriations Agriculture-FDA subcommittee hearing in May. In 2023, Senator Murray pressed national pharmacies including Costco to ensure access to mifepristone, and in August, when Costco announced it would no longer sell mifepristone at its stores, Murray spoke out to demand they reverse course.

    In November of 2025, Senator Murray led the entire Senate Democratic caucus in a letter to HHS Secretary Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Makary expressing alarm over the Trump administration’s plans to conduct “its own review of the evidence” on the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone. Murray’s letter laid into the recent junk science “report” on mifepristone put out by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC)—an avowedly anti-abortion think tank—that appears to be the basis for the Trump administration’s announced review of mifepristone. “By elevating the sham EPPC report as rationale for restricting access to mifepristone, HHS is blatantly undermining well-established science and weaponizing disinformation to fit the Trump administration’s clear agenda to cut off abortion access in any way possible,” Murray and the senators wrote.

    Most recently, at the start of this year, Murray blasted her Republican counterparts on the Senate HELP Committee for holding a sham hearing to discredit medication abortion.

    Throughout her career, Murray has beat back countless Republican attacks on reproductive care and other family planning services—and she is widely credited with successfully pushing the Bush administration’s FDA to follow the science and make Plan B available over the counter.

    ###



    The following sites updated: